Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Gilad Shalit

Case members
I woukld like to suggest that similar to ArbCom cases, parties should eventually make some statement to offer some ideas on the case. this can be at whatever time and context they choose. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've said so in my mediator's note, and that debate should be kept to a minimum per suggestion, just so we have a number of things to choose from. I think this'd go quicker if the "dictionary disputes" are kept off the case page until a later time. I don't mean people can't or shouldn't suggest, say, "kidnapping" over "abduction", or "taken captive", just that the debate over the words is kept to a minimum. If you guys can agree on abduction (as pedro has), then we can keep this to "hostage", which is preferable and per the mediation request. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (moved from case page)
Xavexgoem's proposal: Remove "has been held hostage since" in lead, and replace with "has held against his will since". Shalib's condition as someone being held for ransom by his captors is unknown. Make a note that ransom demands have been made in the lead ("..held against his will. Ransom demands have been made by an unknown party", or something like this). This proposal has the advantage of keeping hostage an implicit option but explicitly moving it out of the lead. It also clears up meta-info (the dispute) under the "International Law" header that would otherwise be kept on the talk page. Pedro has agreed on the use of abduction, Jaakobou has agreed on limiting the use of hostage, and Daniel has said that putting the dispute into the article isn't a good idea. However, Raggz wishes to discuss the usage of Geneva Convention terminology, which this proposal could conflict with. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely pleased with the suggestion (although I very much appreciate the effort). "Held against his will" neglects the possibility that GC prisoner codes are being violated. Other phrasings, esp, with a link to the hostage demands via CNN article - allow a more accurate position. Held against his will is of equal value as POW or prisoner, and is missing a key element on his status... which is the reason for the medcab.
 * I asked Raggz to help out with registering the GC notes since I'm a tad busy for the next week and don't quite have the time to plunge deeply into the matter. Seeing that he's been taking his time, I may request another one of the named parties to help out with this input.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "held against his will under unknown conditions" works too. Anything that avoids the use of the contested terms, really. At any rate, I'll wait for Raggz or someone else to include evidence on the use of GC terminology. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to fill this case with the related GC input before we close it, but for now I'm stating that your latest suggestion could pass as far as I'm concerned.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  09:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that GC terminology should be introduced as evidence. So far as this dispute has been largely between you and Pedro, I'll wait for Pedro's opinion before I make any statements on consensus. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I consider this as consensus between you and Jaakabou to remove hostage out of the lead, at least until some evidence for GC comes about? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we can agree that he will first present the material haere or on Talk:Gilad Shalit and discuss it before inserting it. Cheers and thanks,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 29.01.2008 12:00
 * You're free to edit the lead; there's no need for Jaakabou to do so. Or are you referring to GC? I think it's fair to assume that GC related disputes will happen here or on the article's talk page before editing in, or at any rate introduced, reverted, and brought to talk. In both cases, it may bring more people here so a broader consensus can be reached. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was regarding the GC-content. User:Jaakobou is somewhat notorious for purposely inserting controversial stuff and discussing to the death later. I'll make the edits in the lead. Cheers and thanks!  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 29.01.2008 17:06
 * Just to be clear, and to avoid any confusion (partly my own): I have no say on what is added to an article. I didn't release anyone from the bonds of medcab to be let loose on wikipedia ;). With that said, please don't neglect WP:AGF regarding Jaakabou's subjective notoriety :) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note by Jaakobou:
 * I don't believe that inserting one's version over the other (revert) during mediation is a trust-building move. To remind, on that same day, I tried making a suggestion edit (not a revert) during regular discussions, and Pedro asked "how far can you stretch WP:AGF?" threatening to send me to WP:EA.
 * Per WP:CIV and WP:NPA, Pedro Gonnet, please stick to article material and not your perceptions on other users. Thank you.
 * If the GC material won't be inserted until Friday, I'll maybe get started on it. I'm a bit behind on a couple of RL issues, but expecting more time next week.
 * For the record, regardless of GC, we have three RS using the term, ,.
 * --  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  08:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

$$\leftarrow$$ Ok, there seems to be some confusion here regarding my edit and where this discussion is going. User:Xavexgoem said, a few posts farther up,
 * "Can I consider this as consensus between you and Jaakabou to remove hostage out of the lead, at least until some evidence for GC comes about?"

and
 * "You're free to edit the lead; there's no need for Jaakabou to do so."

Which I understood as exactly that: we agree that hostage does not go into the lead, at least until User:Jaakobou can make a convincing case for it.

As for WP:CIV and WP:NPA, ok, point taken, I won't touch the topic anymore.

Regarding your three sources, Incidentally, for some odd reason you missed the principal B'Tselem document regarding Gilad Shalit and his status as a hostage, namely this one, which sums-up your arguments quite nicely. But again, would you accept (or have you ever accepted) B'Tselem as a reliable source regarding statements potentially critical of Israel?.
 * 1) The first source, Haaretz, uses the term only in the title, referring to the talks, not to Gilad Shalit.
 * 2) The second source, CNN, is the same source I mentioned in my argument summary, which also uses the term only in the title and refers to the "demands".
 * 3) The third source, B'Tselem is, finally, the only source that unequivocally refers to Gilad Shalit as a hostage. B'Tselem is also an excellent source of the use of the term "hostage" when referring to Palestinians in Israeli custody, e.g. here, here, here, etc... Would you accept B'Tselem as a reliable source were somebody to consistently refer to Palestinian prisoners as "hostages"?

But this is going in circles... User:Jaakobou, I gave a concise list of my arguments a bit farther up. So far, I have tried to respond to each of you individual arguments in substance. Would you mind doing the same for mine? Even just for the sake of advancing this discussion?

Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 30.01.2008 09:15

I'm afraid I have misunderstood Jaakabou's position on this matter, and I sincerely apologize. Jaakabou, I know you don't have much time at the moment, but could you clarify your position and what went wrong with Pedro's edit? It was my understanding that a sort of tacit agreement had been reached. Please inform me if I've been wrong in anyway, thanks :) Xavexgoem (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made some source collecting and while the Geneva Convention notes are not included, I feel there's plenty of reliable sources to make some type of decision. Pedro Gonnet, do you have any arguments to be made against Der Spiegel, Jerusalem Post, United States House of Representatives, Reuters and the others?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. Xavexgoem, there was no agreement on the deletion of 'hostage' and I have no idea on how you attained the belief that there was.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou, that sounds totally fine. could you please post the specific sources for whatever it is you're referring to, in the new section below? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I conflated the abduction/hostage terminology agreement (that you would agree to limit use of "hostage" terminology if Pedro accepted "abducted") with my proposal (which removed "hostage" from the lead). Again, I apologize, although it was an easy mistake to make. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * speaking as an interested party, this argument is getting almost impossible to follow. we need a better structure here, similar to Arbcom. Jaakobou, and Pedro, maybe each of you should start a section of your own here. anyway, I'm going to take the liberty of making a subsection for documents and evidence. Could you please post some of your links there, just to provide a basic capsule overview? thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this isn't the best layout, but wasn't sure what to do. I also suggest ungluing your l and k keys ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * good point! :-) I used an Exacto knife to get rid of the silicate cement on them. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)